State v. Mulvihill

• Citation: 253 A.2d 175,105 N.J.Super. 458
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jack MULVIHILL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 12 May 1969
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 458

105 N.J.Super. 458

253 A.2d 175

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jack MULVIHILL, Defendant-Appellant.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued April 14, 1969.

Decided May 12, 1969.

Daniel R. Coburn, Cedar Grove, for appellant (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney, Richard Newman, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel).

Raymond R. Trombadore, First Asst. Prosecutor, for respondent (Michael R. Imbriani, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney).

Before Judges CONFORD, KILKENNY and LEONARD.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CONFORD, S.J.A.D.

This case involves the question whether, notwithstanding our decision in State v. Koonce, 89 N.J.Super. 169, 214 A.2d 428 (App.Div.1965), the defense of self-defense applies in a criminal assault and battery prosecution where a police officer uses excessive force in compelling a suspect of disorderly conduct to submit to interrogation. The fact situation just assumed is predicated on defendant's testimonial version as to the critical events, which could have been given credence by the jury, and permissible favorable inferences therefrom.

In Koonce we held, prospectively, that the illegality of an arrest by a police officer acting in the performance of his duties would not constitute a defense to a prosecution for assault on the officer by the arrestee in the course of resistance to the arrest. The facts of that case did not involve the question of unreasonable or excessive force by the police officer in advance of the assault by the arrestee, and the opinion did not deal with the defense of self-defense reasonably necessitated by such force.

The version of the relevant portion of the instant episode testified to by Officer Dowling of the Somerville police was as follows.

He observed defendant on the street, standing in front of a pizzeria along with two other persons. As he passed by he noticed defendant pouring something from a bottle into a cup held by one of the other persons. He then stopped his patrol car, got out and called to defendant and the two other persons to come over to him. As defendant walked toward him he threw the cup which he had in his hand onto the sidewalk. He asked defendant if he had been drinking but defendant did not answer him. However, he was close enough to him to smell alcohol on his breath. He then placed defendant under arrest for drinking on a public street (a violation of a local ordinance). As he told defendant to get into the police car, the latter struck him on the left side of the face. He was knocked to the ground by the blow and immediately got up and grabbed defendant. Defendant and the police officer 'tussled' and again both fell to the ground. The officer again got up from the ground and told defendant that he was going to handcuff him and put him into the police car, whereupon defendant kicked the officer in the groin and grabbed him around the waist with one hand on the officer's gun, causing both of them to fall to the sidewalk a third time. As they were on the ground, the officer and defendant struggled for the officer's gun and it discharged against the side of the adjoining building.

Defendant's testimonial version differed sharply. Essentially, it was as follows. A youth of 20, he had been drinking liquor (his own bottle) at the pizzeria, and emerged therefrom, with two companions, still drinkng from a cup. As he walked down the street he saw Officer Dowling approach, and he threw the cup down. Dowling asked what he was drinking and what had been in the cup. He refused to answer. Dowling grabbed him and asked to smell his breath. He held his breath, silent, in order to avoid incriminating himself. Dowling shook him by the shoulders 'back and forth' and said, to defendant's best recollection, 'I should arrest you, you punk.' Defendant tried to 'pull free from him' and Dowling 'jerked him backward,' with the result that both men fell to the ground. They arose, Dowling still holding him. Defendant again tried to pull free, whereupon Dowling struck him on the side of the head with his gun, lacerating the scalp. Defendant fell toward the officer and both went down again, Dowling trying to 'roll and flip' defe...